May
10th
an allegory of bitter water
By atimetorend
"If a man and a woman commit adultery, kill them both."
Leviticus 20, (my
paraphrase)
Allegory
A man accused his wife of cheating on him. "How can you say
that?" she cried, "you have never had cause to doubt my
faithfulness to you!" Despite her pleas of innocence, the husband
remained adamant. "Are you calling my honor into question?" he
shouted. "I will not be subject to this kind of insubordination!"
In jealousy and anger, he dragged her to see the pastor of their
church to seek help.
The pastor forced the woman to stand before him, alone, and told
her to unpin her hair. The woman did so, her long hair flowing
down around her face. The woman felt vulnerable, shamed, and
afraid. "Fetch the water from my office," the pastor whispered to
an assistant. The assistant returned with a pitcher of vile,
muddy-looking water.
"You will need to drink this water," the pastor explained. "If
you truly are innocent," he said, "everything will be fine. But
if not, you will become violently ill. So ill in fact, you will
never be able to have children again. And also know," he added,
"should all this come to pass, your family and your church will
shun you, you will live as an outcast, even in your own home."
The pastor wrote down notes of the proceedings on a piece of cardboard, using a stylus of charcoal. With some water from a cup, he rinsed the words off, into the pitcher of muddy water. "Do you agree to this course of action?" he asked. The wife remained silent, tears streaking her face. The pastor repeated his question, his voice rising. The woman nodded her head softly. "Do you agree?" the pastor almost shouted. "Say it!"
"Yes," the woman choked out, more a sob than an actual word.
"Drink, now," commanded the pastor. Seeing no other option,
the wife took a gulp of the water directly from the pitcher. She
gagged twice before she could swallow. Her shirt was stained by
the brown liquid which ran down her chin.
"Go," said the pastor. The woman took a couple of steps back and
rejoined her husband. The pastor intoned, "I hope there are no
ill-consequences from this experience. I wish you many happy days
together, and many children. I wish you peace. I trust we never
need repeat this experience."
Before the couple left, he pulled the husband aside. "Fear not,"
he told him. "As you already know, I will ensure nobody condemns
you for coming here today." At this, the husband breathed a sigh
of relief. It had not been easy, but he knew he had done the
right thing.
my (amateur) commentary:
If you are not familiar with this story, it follows the outline
of chapter 5 of the book of Numbers. Many Old Testament practices which
sound terrible to us today are explained by apologists as the
bible’s depiction of sinful people, in no way condoning the
actions. I am sure that is true in many cases. This one cannot be
written off so easily though, it is clearly described as God’s
instruction to Israel.
The best apologetic I have read, in support of a beneficial
purpose for this passage, explains that contemporary cultures
were far worse, so this was a merciful commandment given to
Israel by a loving God. For example, you wouldn’t want to undergo
the trial of being bound and thrown into the Euphrates River to
prove your innocence!
I do not find that answer satisfying though. Even if it was
progressive for the time, it still seems unnecessarily harsh. It
seems more likely to me the passage is a cultural artifact of an
ancient tribe, rather than a divine message to a chosen
people.
On a more positive note, this practice was not embraced by the
Christian tradition. John 7:53-8:11 (the "Pericope Adulterae") tells the story of
Jesus graciously protecting a woman caught in adultery, seemingly
in stark contrast to Numbers, chapter 5. "He who is without
sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her."
There is a general consensus among biblical scholars that the
Pericope Adulterae was not part of the original
text of the gospel of John. If a later insertion however, it is a
relatively early one (c. 4th century CE), and added early or
late, still signifies a moderation of the Old Testament theme.
May
2nd
Jennifer Knapp, et al
By Infidel
So Jennifer is a lesbian.
I am too (wait for it! BAM! Now you get it! ;-) )
I was in a xtian bookstore a couple of days ago and I couldn't find any JK CDs. I wonder if the xtian community will be forgiving to her and start buying her music again...
One of the many things that nudged me down the road to deconversion was the inconsistency (I hate the word "hypocrisy") practiced in the faith especially by the leaders. Look at all of the xtian leaders who got caught with their pants down and, after a period of time out of the spotlight, are back in the saddle, so to speak.
Amy Grant is one of them. As I recall, Sandi Patti is another. Amongst preachers we have the infamous Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, Paula White and I recently heard that Benny Hinn was getting a divorce possibly due to infidelity on his part (as yet unproven).
On a more personal level, many years ago I attended a church in which one of the staff pastors got caught in a 20 year affair with his secretary (or is that sexretary?). Guess how the leadership handled it? This pastor was resigning because magically "god had called him to be an evangelist"! And I have seen other such nonsense.
What bugs me about all of them was that they violated a fairly fundamental law in xtianity yet are able to stage a comeback and usually make a ton of money. Why do "bible believers" who supposedly hate infidelity and divorce so quickly "forgive" and enrich those who violate those tenets?
I am too (wait for it! BAM! Now you get it! ;-) )
I was in a xtian bookstore a couple of days ago and I couldn't find any JK CDs. I wonder if the xtian community will be forgiving to her and start buying her music again...
One of the many things that nudged me down the road to deconversion was the inconsistency (I hate the word "hypocrisy") practiced in the faith especially by the leaders. Look at all of the xtian leaders who got caught with their pants down and, after a period of time out of the spotlight, are back in the saddle, so to speak.
Amy Grant is one of them. As I recall, Sandi Patti is another. Amongst preachers we have the infamous Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, Paula White and I recently heard that Benny Hinn was getting a divorce possibly due to infidelity on his part (as yet unproven).
On a more personal level, many years ago I attended a church in which one of the staff pastors got caught in a 20 year affair with his secretary (or is that sexretary?). Guess how the leadership handled it? This pastor was resigning because magically "god had called him to be an evangelist"! And I have seen other such nonsense.
What bugs me about all of them was that they violated a fairly fundamental law in xtianity yet are able to stage a comeback and usually make a ton of money. Why do "bible believers" who supposedly hate infidelity and divorce so quickly "forgive" and enrich those who violate those tenets?
Apr
29th
stress of conversations
By atimetorend
Things being so quiet here, I am cross-posting
the most recent post from my personal blog.My wife and I have been attending a New Church, which is more progressive than the Old Church we previously attended before I left the faith. The leaders there are very comfortable with people of other faiths and beliefs, not needing things to fit into the black and white categories which is often the case in evangelicalism.
The group we attend maintains a blog which has broached some
interesting and difficult (for the evangelical church) topics
lately; gay marriage, evolution, and an article by a secular
humanist critiquing Christianity. I have been very impressed by
the intelligent and nuanced conversations, both from the more
liberal and more conservative commentators.
Most of the commentators that is. Not surprisingly there are
several who are more fundamentalist in their views. And
unfortunately, as is often the case, they tend to be the loudest,
making statements that tend to close down dialog and
conversation. Unnecessarily divisive in my opinion.
I think that most people, myself included, have a relatively
limited capacity to deal with people with differing opinions. We
are willing to be regularly nudged a little this way, or a little
that way. But the larger shifts are often too difficult to handle
unless absolutely necessary. I think that is why the adversarial
commentators react the way they do. That, and maybe they have
also been conditioned by the evangelical culture to think it is a
good thing to "stand firm" in their opinions rather than
listening to challenging ideas with an open mind. Yeah, I know,
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall
out...
I think the divisions in these discussions are better understood
as studies in sociology than as a spiritual fight between light
and darkness. The spiritual fight excuse gets brought out way too
early, and is often brought up because the person is unwilling to
contemplate their own faults in a conversation. It seems a cop
out. Conversely, from the secular side, the mind of the Christian
(or traditionalist) is too often called into question, with
statements to the effect of, "Nobody with any sense would believe
that superstitious religious nonsense." True or not, these
accusations do nothing to foster understanding.
Having the same limited capacity, I unsubscribed from the blog
and the comments yesterday. I try to remain open-minded, and be
nudged a bit this way or that. But it is not worth it to me to go
around feeling angry or stressed about what I read. And I know I
am too quick to anger in those situations. In the end, we all
tend to find fellowship with people who are more or less
like-minded, and we all run the risk of feeling persecuted by
those with differing opinions. But we don't need to be completely
locked into those mind sets either. And yes, I have peeked
back at the blog since I first drafted this. A new post is up
about Jennifer Knapp's interview with Larry King, discussing her
coming out as a lesbian. Exciting!
You can read a transcript of Jennifer
Knapp's interview, or watch the video, part one of three is here.
Apr
11th
Newsmax
By InfidelSo I'm reading the April issue of Newsmax and I come across a section about faith in America. As I expected, it was all warm and positive about belief in God and how that helps people in hard times, etc, etc.
But I thought they would at least attempt to be straight up in their reporting. My belief about that was shattered by an inset on page 55 which read, "A recent Newsmax-Zoby International poll...shows nearly a third of Americans feel closer to God because of the down economy." Sounds ok, right?
Weeeellll, when I looked at the bar graph supporting that assertion, what I found was that to get to 30% they had to add two categories together. The statement was:
The recession has drawn you closer to God and your religious faith.
Answers:
Strongly agree: 12.4%
Somewhat agree: 21.9%
Somewhat disagree: 22.7%
Strongly disagree: 29.7%
Not sure: 13.3%
So, the real story here is that 30% of Americans say that the economy had no affect on their religious beliefs. And, if we do like Newsmax does and add categories together, we come up with 52.4% say that the economy had very little or no impact on their religious beliefs while ONLY a third said it did.
So why would Newsmax print such a statement? While it is factually true, it is misleading in that it implies that people turn to God or their religion during tough times when the poll's actual numbers show that most don't.
The other graphs reveal an even more depressing picture of religion in America if you are religious.
47.5% strongly disagreed (17.7% somewhat disagreed) with the statement that God promises prosperity to those who follow biblical rules.
65.2% said they do not tithe.
47% said they NEVER what religious TV programming and another 35.4% said they RARELY watch. So who's watching this stuff?
Seems that America is not really as religious as we thought.
Apr
1st
Violence in Christianity
By perpetualstudent
I will start with a confession. I still go to church. I
don't believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. I don't
believe in the existance of angels, demons, or God. There are
several reasons why. I am not anti-religious and I do see
benefits in some religious rituals but more importantly my
wife would like to remain a part of a religious community.
However it is getting harder and harder to go.
This last Saturday (I grew up Seventh Day Adventist) we went to church. My wife and I spend a lot of effort making sure that our 3 year old is not exposed to material that he is not ready for (anything violent or scary.) After all that effort, we go to church, only to have the pastor show clips from Passion of the Christ. All of this was interspersed with various war stories. In fact many of his sermons have violent content. Of course what do you expect from a guy who claims that Mark Driscoll is one of his inspirations.
Of course also in the news we have Huturees. And Left Behind and many other examples. It just makes me curious as to whatever happened to "Peace on Earth Good Will to Men."
This last Saturday (I grew up Seventh Day Adventist) we went to church. My wife and I spend a lot of effort making sure that our 3 year old is not exposed to material that he is not ready for (anything violent or scary.) After all that effort, we go to church, only to have the pastor show clips from Passion of the Christ. All of this was interspersed with various war stories. In fact many of his sermons have violent content. Of course what do you expect from a guy who claims that Mark Driscoll is one of his inspirations.
Of course also in the news we have Huturees. And Left Behind and many other examples. It just makes me curious as to whatever happened to "Peace on Earth Good Will to Men."
Feb
14th
"Shanking"
By Eve's Apple
When I was in my twenties, I worked for a brief time at a racetrack
walking horses. This was in the Seventies, not long
Secretariat burst upon the scene in blue-and-white-checked copper
glory to break the Triple Crown drought. Women were just
starting to become jockeys. And I had this crazy idea that I
would become one of them. So I packed up my car and headed
off to fame and fortune. I didn't find either.
I started out as a "hot walker", the lowest of the low, working with horses that were the lowest of the low. I wasn't even allowed to shovel manure--that was for the grooms, the next up on the hierarchy. My job was to take each horse as it came back from exercise (in the morning) or racing (in the afternoon) and walk it for about a half-hour until it was all cooled out and ready to go back in its stall. For that I received the princely sum of five dollars per horse--if I got paid. My first employer was a trainer who had the reputation of telling his help that the horses weren't doing so well this week, so maybe next week . . . Needless to say he had a high turnover.
Every morning I had to take a leather strap with a two-foot chain on it and thread the chain around the horse's halter noseband. This was called the shank. If the horse misbehaved or did something that wasn't allowed, I had to yank hard on the shank to get its attention. This may sound cruel but when you are in close quarters with a panicky 1,000+ lb Thoroughbred, you need to get control and quickly.
It seemed like the trainers and grooms were always telling me to "shank" a horse for the slightest thing. The poor horses weren't allowed to be horses. They had to be living robots. Most particularly, they were not allowed to show any interest in the opposite sex whatsover. That was a shanking offense. One groom told me many stallions when they are first retired to stud refuse to breed at first--because they have learned that "mares are trouble" and don't want anything to do with them.
Now, looking back, I can see many times where I was "shanked" in my sexual development by those around me. It seemed like almost everyone around me was conspiring to keep me ignorant and passive. I remember my mother's anger when she learned that I had already learned the "facts of life" from a classmate in the sixth grade. Anger that someone had beat her to it, or anger at me for learning what I was not supposed to know? Or the time when my Bible Study group was going to go swimming and one of the women asked me not to wear a two-piece suit because it might stir up the guys. I told her I didn't have a two-piece suit, and then added, what about what the guys wear? She was horrified! You don't mean to tell me you look? Well duh, I am 16 years old, what do you think? Isn't this supposed to be part of the natural progression of life? Or how about the married abstinence group leader who reluctantly admitted that she felt that sex was more important to guys, that they get more out of it. Or being told by a Christian "friend" that a certain V-necked dress was too low cut even though the V-neck stopped far north of any real cleavage. Like a racehorse with a shank around its halter, my budding sexuality was micromanaged, suppressed, and discouraged.
And then I entered the world of dating. I have already written about the sexual abuse that happened there. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in my "training" had prepared me for this. I truly did not understand what was going on and what I was supposed to do. The sad thing is, I still don't. I suspect that there are a lot of Christian women out there like me who are trying to come to grips with being sexually damaged. Who are trying to overcome their earlier brainwashing and find on some level they can't. Who have nobody to talk to, Christian or otherwise, and just live their lives in lonely desperation.
I started out as a "hot walker", the lowest of the low, working with horses that were the lowest of the low. I wasn't even allowed to shovel manure--that was for the grooms, the next up on the hierarchy. My job was to take each horse as it came back from exercise (in the morning) or racing (in the afternoon) and walk it for about a half-hour until it was all cooled out and ready to go back in its stall. For that I received the princely sum of five dollars per horse--if I got paid. My first employer was a trainer who had the reputation of telling his help that the horses weren't doing so well this week, so maybe next week . . . Needless to say he had a high turnover.
Every morning I had to take a leather strap with a two-foot chain on it and thread the chain around the horse's halter noseband. This was called the shank. If the horse misbehaved or did something that wasn't allowed, I had to yank hard on the shank to get its attention. This may sound cruel but when you are in close quarters with a panicky 1,000+ lb Thoroughbred, you need to get control and quickly.
It seemed like the trainers and grooms were always telling me to "shank" a horse for the slightest thing. The poor horses weren't allowed to be horses. They had to be living robots. Most particularly, they were not allowed to show any interest in the opposite sex whatsover. That was a shanking offense. One groom told me many stallions when they are first retired to stud refuse to breed at first--because they have learned that "mares are trouble" and don't want anything to do with them.
Now, looking back, I can see many times where I was "shanked" in my sexual development by those around me. It seemed like almost everyone around me was conspiring to keep me ignorant and passive. I remember my mother's anger when she learned that I had already learned the "facts of life" from a classmate in the sixth grade. Anger that someone had beat her to it, or anger at me for learning what I was not supposed to know? Or the time when my Bible Study group was going to go swimming and one of the women asked me not to wear a two-piece suit because it might stir up the guys. I told her I didn't have a two-piece suit, and then added, what about what the guys wear? She was horrified! You don't mean to tell me you look? Well duh, I am 16 years old, what do you think? Isn't this supposed to be part of the natural progression of life? Or how about the married abstinence group leader who reluctantly admitted that she felt that sex was more important to guys, that they get more out of it. Or being told by a Christian "friend" that a certain V-necked dress was too low cut even though the V-neck stopped far north of any real cleavage. Like a racehorse with a shank around its halter, my budding sexuality was micromanaged, suppressed, and discouraged.
And then I entered the world of dating. I have already written about the sexual abuse that happened there. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in my "training" had prepared me for this. I truly did not understand what was going on and what I was supposed to do. The sad thing is, I still don't. I suspect that there are a lot of Christian women out there like me who are trying to come to grips with being sexually damaged. Who are trying to overcome their earlier brainwashing and find on some level they can't. Who have nobody to talk to, Christian or otherwise, and just live their lives in lonely desperation.
Feb
5th
Other dimensions
By Infidel
I've touched on this once before, but in the interest of stirring
up some conversation around here...
I'm conflicted. I don't believe in a god, but during my Christian days I saw and experienced things that I have no explanation for. For example, my wife and I were at our church alone one night and we both saw "something". We called it an angel. Neither one of us spoke to the other about it until afterward and then it was one of those, "did you see something in there?" moments. We were in agreement about what we saw, where we saw it and when we saw it.
Naturally as Christians we assumed it was an angel from god and naturally we didn't have one shred of evidence to support that assumption. But that never occurred to us. After all, we just saw an angel! What more do you want?
I know naturalists will say something to the effect of it was all in our heads and I respect that, but I'm not so sure. While I no longer believe in god, I wonder if there are other "beings" in other dimensions/parallel universes (would this work with string theory?) that we occasionally come in contact with. We don't realize it or, as religious people, we assign it some heavenly meaning like my wife and I did.
As an apatheist, I am very amused with myself that at that time I automatically assumed it was a "God thing". Why did I assume that? I simply saw something. I didn't speak to it and it didn't speak to me. I have no proof that it was an angel and even if it was, I have no proof that it came from god.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I ASSUMED!!! And until recently, I never questioned that assumption. Incidentally, neither did any of my friends when I told them the story. They too accepted that I saw an angel from god.
And we wonder why churches are full?
So, let's hear it. What are your theories about unexplainable phenomena such as I have related here?
I'm conflicted. I don't believe in a god, but during my Christian days I saw and experienced things that I have no explanation for. For example, my wife and I were at our church alone one night and we both saw "something". We called it an angel. Neither one of us spoke to the other about it until afterward and then it was one of those, "did you see something in there?" moments. We were in agreement about what we saw, where we saw it and when we saw it.
Naturally as Christians we assumed it was an angel from god and naturally we didn't have one shred of evidence to support that assumption. But that never occurred to us. After all, we just saw an angel! What more do you want?
I know naturalists will say something to the effect of it was all in our heads and I respect that, but I'm not so sure. While I no longer believe in god, I wonder if there are other "beings" in other dimensions/parallel universes (would this work with string theory?) that we occasionally come in contact with. We don't realize it or, as religious people, we assign it some heavenly meaning like my wife and I did.
As an apatheist, I am very amused with myself that at that time I automatically assumed it was a "God thing". Why did I assume that? I simply saw something. I didn't speak to it and it didn't speak to me. I have no proof that it was an angel and even if it was, I have no proof that it came from god.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I ASSUMED!!! And until recently, I never questioned that assumption. Incidentally, neither did any of my friends when I told them the story. They too accepted that I saw an angel from god.
And we wonder why churches are full?
So, let's hear it. What are your theories about unexplainable phenomena such as I have related here?
Jan
16th
Disappointed
By Infidel
I'm disappointed in my wife, but not suprised. We were just talking
and I was telling her that I finally figured out what happened this
past summer that "pushed me over the edge" into doubt and
ultimately led to my deconversion.
I guess a little background is required here. Most recently I attended a messianic jewish synagouge. It was fun and exciting at first and I began a torah study in my home four years ago. All was well at first, but as time went on I began to realized that I was being taught by my rabbi and by the course material in my torah study that the MJ community's opion was that everything I had learned as a gentile believer was wrong because it was divorced from christianity's jewish roots.
My first flag went up about 2 years ago when I realized that the torah study material always spoke disparengingly of christian teaching or interpretations of certain passages of the bible. I got to the point where I wondered aloud, "If we got EVERYTHING wrong, how did we get Jesus (or Yeshua as he is called in the MJ community to "bring back" his jewishness) right? How is it we were right on that one point and only that one point?"
I almost bought into it, but then this past summer, the publishers of the study material came out and basically said, "Oops. We've changed our minds." about some of the most fundamental teachings they had within the MJ community.
So I was left with: They have told me for 3+ years that everything the church taught was wrong and now they say, "oops"?
I had other issues going on with my beliefs as it was and this was the last straw. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
So I decided to start with the basics. Since all of my belief system was based on the bible, it made sense to me to validate the bible because if the bible wasn't valid, none of the other teachings mattered.
If you're on this site, you know where that led!
Now back to my conversation with my wife. The friends that I mentioned in another post are coming over tonight and my suspicions were well founded. My wife is hoping for some type of intervention. I say that because she made a comment that she hoped that the husband who is a good friend (I hope that "is" doesn't become "was", but we'll see) could say some magic phrase to reassure me. That told me that she has not truly listened to all that I have shared with her about the research I've done and the answers I found. She's still hoping for Scott the devout Christain.
That guy is gone. Destroyed by christianity itself and buried by facts. Facts that show that the bible is a collection of stories, but nothing more.
How do I get her to understand that?
I guess a little background is required here. Most recently I attended a messianic jewish synagouge. It was fun and exciting at first and I began a torah study in my home four years ago. All was well at first, but as time went on I began to realized that I was being taught by my rabbi and by the course material in my torah study that the MJ community's opion was that everything I had learned as a gentile believer was wrong because it was divorced from christianity's jewish roots.
My first flag went up about 2 years ago when I realized that the torah study material always spoke disparengingly of christian teaching or interpretations of certain passages of the bible. I got to the point where I wondered aloud, "If we got EVERYTHING wrong, how did we get Jesus (or Yeshua as he is called in the MJ community to "bring back" his jewishness) right? How is it we were right on that one point and only that one point?"
I almost bought into it, but then this past summer, the publishers of the study material came out and basically said, "Oops. We've changed our minds." about some of the most fundamental teachings they had within the MJ community.
So I was left with: They have told me for 3+ years that everything the church taught was wrong and now they say, "oops"?
I had other issues going on with my beliefs as it was and this was the last straw. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
So I decided to start with the basics. Since all of my belief system was based on the bible, it made sense to me to validate the bible because if the bible wasn't valid, none of the other teachings mattered.
If you're on this site, you know where that led!
Now back to my conversation with my wife. The friends that I mentioned in another post are coming over tonight and my suspicions were well founded. My wife is hoping for some type of intervention. I say that because she made a comment that she hoped that the husband who is a good friend (I hope that "is" doesn't become "was", but we'll see) could say some magic phrase to reassure me. That told me that she has not truly listened to all that I have shared with her about the research I've done and the answers I found. She's still hoping for Scott the devout Christain.
That guy is gone. Destroyed by christianity itself and buried by facts. Facts that show that the bible is a collection of stories, but nothing more.
How do I get her to understand that?
Jan
8th
Evidence that demands a verdict
By Infidel
So I decided to read Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands
A Verdict.
Is he for real? I've read half way through chapter 2 (34 pages) and I can't believe he is making such absurd claims (I started to say "arguments" but he hasn't made an argument yet!). Is he serious about his claim that the number of copies of the new testament is proof of its authenticity? Please tell me that he's not serious (I know, I know. He is.).
He brags and brags how the bible influenced society, governments, history, etc. Well, of course it has! Well, since the 4th century, believers have been told that it is the WORD OF GOD (thunder, please). When people believe it is the word of god, they tend to let themselves be influenced by it. What's so amazing about that? Furthermore, how does that prove anything about the authenticity of the bible?
Is the rest of the book going to be like this?
Is he for real? I've read half way through chapter 2 (34 pages) and I can't believe he is making such absurd claims (I started to say "arguments" but he hasn't made an argument yet!). Is he serious about his claim that the number of copies of the new testament is proof of its authenticity? Please tell me that he's not serious (I know, I know. He is.).
He brags and brags how the bible influenced society, governments, history, etc. Well, of course it has! Well, since the 4th century, believers have been told that it is the WORD OF GOD (thunder, please). When people believe it is the word of god, they tend to let themselves be influenced by it. What's so amazing about that? Furthermore, how does that prove anything about the authenticity of the bible?
Is the rest of the book going to be like this?
Jan
7th
Didn't know it was so easy (conclusion)
By Infidel
Well, I finished the book after all.
I am speechless. At no time did Aling ever really try to validate the bible stories of Joseph, Moses or the exodus. He just took them as fact and moved on. In fact, he went so far as to disallow anything that disputed the bible and went with the bible. I thought about listing my 25 objections, but I think that would be preaching to the choir.
Two things come to mind:
1) This pretty well drives the nail in the coffin for me concerning the bible. I purposely read a book from a believer to see if he would reasonably prove what the bible claims. He didn't even try. In fact, as I have said, he admitted that there is no archeological nor historical data to back up the bible's claims. And this guy has a Phd in Egyptology!
2) This experience shows me the power of belief. I read this same book 25 years ago and accepted every excuse Aling offered. Now I just hang my head in shame that I did so. Did I really just take it all? Yes I did. I refused to listen to REASON! I attributed my doubts to the devil instead of realizing that they were from my BRAIN hollering, "Wake up, stupid! Wake up!"
It's funny, I am a skeptic by nature, but I wasn't here. I accepted the bible without real question. I accepted the lame-ass "proof of the infallibility" of the bible without question. Even though I was skeptical about various claims made by various people, various doctrines taught, etc, I never questioned the entire world-view!
Man, what an eye-opener! The emperor has no clothes. I'm just sorry it took me 30 years to see it.
I am speechless. At no time did Aling ever really try to validate the bible stories of Joseph, Moses or the exodus. He just took them as fact and moved on. In fact, he went so far as to disallow anything that disputed the bible and went with the bible. I thought about listing my 25 objections, but I think that would be preaching to the choir.
Two things come to mind:
1) This pretty well drives the nail in the coffin for me concerning the bible. I purposely read a book from a believer to see if he would reasonably prove what the bible claims. He didn't even try. In fact, as I have said, he admitted that there is no archeological nor historical data to back up the bible's claims. And this guy has a Phd in Egyptology!
2) This experience shows me the power of belief. I read this same book 25 years ago and accepted every excuse Aling offered. Now I just hang my head in shame that I did so. Did I really just take it all? Yes I did. I refused to listen to REASON! I attributed my doubts to the devil instead of realizing that they were from my BRAIN hollering, "Wake up, stupid! Wake up!"
It's funny, I am a skeptic by nature, but I wasn't here. I accepted the bible without real question. I accepted the lame-ass "proof of the infallibility" of the bible without question. Even though I was skeptical about various claims made by various people, various doctrines taught, etc, I never questioned the entire world-view!
Man, what an eye-opener! The emperor has no clothes. I'm just sorry it took me 30 years to see it.
Viewing 1 - 10 of 19
